User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2018-04-05 at 12:18 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick Not jealous? Is that why you've brought up that subject three separate times, both to alter the course of discussion and to complain?
You've compared this thread to yours several times throughout this thread, I have to believe that on some level, it offends you. Even if this isn't the case, I'm sure you can see how I and others may have gotten that idea. I gave you the benefit of the doubt even though this was obviously the case, but now I'm done arguing with you. I don't think you're interested in a productive discussion, and I don't want to fight with you.
Thanks for posting those quotes; it reminded me that I actually was able to get Finny to shut up simply by posting more and more scientific research that supported the topic. You literally had to request the admin to moderate this thread and eventually ban Finny just because he was saying things you don't like.
Good arguments can stand up on their own. Your argument cannot stand on it's own because nobody has a moral obligation to not eat meat. You may prefer to not eat meat and that is fine, but thus far all you have demonstrated is that you have this preference and not that anyone else has an obligation to adopt it. -
2018-04-04 at 11:50 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick You could dispose of the entire discipline of ethics with such an argument. I don't believe that is your intention, though.
I think that you're arguing in bad faith. You don't like that my thread became successful and yours didn't. That's why you grafted the discussion about plants here, and that's why you're trying to drown us in circular logic crafted specifically to stifle discussion. I'd appreciate if this passive-aggressive behavior would stop. I never did anything to you, I just happened to make a thread that took off and now I'm trying to maintain it. It's really not so different from yours, in that regard.
No Zanick. I'm not jealous of your thread, I'm not trying to stifle discussion or drown it by talking about plants (notice that I actually stopped talking about plants when you asked me to - you continued to talk about plants yourself with people other than me). Honestly, I'm not that clever or malicious.
I simply disagree with you. I don't believe anyone has a moral obligation to not eat meat. Some people prefer to not eat meat, and that is all it is. A preference. I understand why you prefer to not eat meat. You've explain this. But neither I nor anyone else have any moral obligation to adopt your preferences. -
2018-04-04 at 10:41 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick That's exactly wrong. I haven't made a thread about stopping murders because murder is illegal pretty much everywhere. If you want there to be a thread about stopping murder between humans, you're welcome to make a thread about it. I don't think you'll find many people who want to debate you on that subject, however. I won't discuss it at length in here because it would be off-topic, just like those pages on the subject of plants.
Just by living in a commonwealth full of people who don't want to be murdered, you are tacitly agreeing to help them prevent murders. Most of the time, this obligation is mediated through your tax dollars, which pay law enforcement to apprehend the killers and judges to sentence them. But if you see a murder or know of one, you are obligated to provide your statement, legally and ethically. That you consider this optional from a moral standpoint is very worrisome.
So yes, murder is wrong, and you do have to stop it. I don't expect you to jump in front of the bullet, but if you make a 911 call and make yourself available for questioning, you'll have done your job. Unless you'd like to investigate the different kinds of murder you might ignore, I think you should let this point go.
No, there is no moral obligation. People are not morally obligated to do anything. Some people prefer to live life a certain way, but they have no moral obligation to. -
2018-04-04 at 10:01 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick Supply and demand: If you don't agree with how a business is conducting themselves, stop buying from them. It's one of the few political choices you can make in this country as a private citizen. There is historical precedence for Americans to boycott the meat industry: when horrible conditions for animals and laborors, along with a thoroughly corrupt meat grading process, were exposed in Chicago's meatpacking district early in the 20th century, citizens and government alike converged to institute reform. Had we not, the consequences would have been a disaster on each of those fronts. It is not only your obligation to demand change, but it is also your privilege as a consumer.
No such obligation exists. There are lots of things we may not like about the world but we have no obligation to do anything about any of them. Do you think murder is wrong? Why not make a thread about how we have a moral obligation to prevent murders? I don't know why but I believe it is because you prefer to talk about this subject. If you saw someone murdering people, I don't know if you would try to prevent it from happening or if you would run or hide or how you would react, but you wouldn't have any moral obligation to do anything at all, even if you think murder is wrong. Some people might prefer to not eat meat, but nobody has an obligation to not eat meat. -
2018-04-04 at 9:13 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick That's exactly what I was asking, thank you. We've established that you think hurting animals because we enjoy it is wrong, and additionally, you feel bad for animals who die inadvertently as a result of human activities. So, why not sympathize with animals who are being purposefully killed with inhumane methods, and who suffer greatly because of it? Why does the fact that you get a burger out of it make it permissible?
I already told you how I feel about factory farms. I said I felt bad for those animals. But that doesn't mean anyone has a moral obligation to stop eating meat. I think the conditions in those farms could be better, I feel bad for those animals, but I don't think anyone has a moral obligation to do anything about it at all. -
2018-04-04 at 8:33 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick I'm trying to demonstrate it, but you're dodging my questions. We've agreed that harming animals for its own sake is immoral: can we furthermore agree that it's not desirable even as a byproduct of our human activity?
I don't agree with that. I eat meat and I dont think its wrong that an animal died. When we build a new building and animals have their natural habitats destroyed and they have to find new homes or get killed in the process, I don't think it's wrong. I feel bad for these animals but I don't think I'm a bad person. When I see mice that died from chewing through wires or birds that died by falling into street lights, I don't feel like I did anything wrong at all. It's just stuff happening. Whether this stuff is right or wrong is an opinion, not a fact. -
2018-04-04 at 6:30 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick Shocking, right? You'll remember though that you've had me give the same arguments over again more than a dozen times in this thread. I don't think it's unreasonable that you write me a couple lines regarding your feelings on factory farming despite your having done so in one other place.
I wasn't actually accepting that morality is relative, I was agreeing to conduct the debate on familiar ground for you and prove that it's still wrong even within your relativistic framework, but if you're content with where we are, I would encourage you to leave.
You don't have to keep giving me the same argument phrased in different ways. Just give me an argument that works. You will not be able to do that because morality is relative. Demonstrate otherwise. I'll wait until you do. -
2018-04-04 at 6:24 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop posting in zanick's gay ass meat thread."Meat is murder but shooting people is fine."
-
2018-04-04 at 6:21 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick I've offered you several arguments from my position and rephrased them at your request, so might I ask that you do the same for me?
You want me to tell you the same thing phrased in a different way? What??
This is just getting ridiculous Zanick. Since you have accepted that morality is relative and that we do not share a moral obligation to stop eating meat I am fine with just not posting in this thread anymore. -
2018-04-04 at 6:07 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick Right, morality is relative. Noted. One more question, though: do you hurt animals is your free time? Do you hurt them for your job? What would you say is good about hurting animals, aside from providing meat?
I'm glad you see that morality is relative and that therefore none of us share your moral obligations. No I don't hurt animals. I already told you what I think about industrial farming. Animals probably do get injured due to the nature of my work. -
2018-04-04 at 5:46 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick I don't think you can do that. Normative ethical claims aren't predicated on a truth value because you don't find ethics in the wild. They are a product of human relationships, and you operate on their basis every day. To say that you don't employ morality in a number of your decisions on a daily basis is obviously a fabrication because you probably don't rape or cannibalize people - that I know of. So, if we can agree there are certain ethical presuppositions with which you align yourself, are you open to considering that there might be others?
Of course I agree with that. I said several times that morality is relative. You claimed that we all have the same moral obligation. That's simply not true. What you consider to be wrong is not what everyone else does or should consider to be wrong. -
2018-04-04 at 5:35 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-04-04 at 5:29 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick Ethically speaking, eating meat is wrong because it supports an industry of exploitation, cruelty, and death. You have a choice of what to do with your money, and you ought to spend it in ways that don't further the suffering of innocent creatures. I've said this to you about a dozen different ways.
There's room for a little on-topic silliness in a thousand post discussion thread, lighten up. This got as long as it did because I made a strong claim in the title. I know it's bothering you, but that's the only reason you're in here right now, torturing me with circular reasoning. Why don't you try joining the discussion? It seems as though you like philosophy, so engage us on these claims, rather saying that we aren't trying, pronouncing yourself the victor and taking refuge in relativism again and again.
There's not really anything to discuss - you made a claim and have failed to demonstrate it. You keep insisting that "this is unethical" and "we ought to do that" but you have not shown these claims to be true. There is nothing to take refuge from, you don't have an argument. You claim we have a moral obligation, your job is to demonstrate this. You cannot do this because morality is relative. There is nothing else left to say. -
2018-04-04 at 5 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick Like it not, you're a part of this moment. I realize you'd prefer to keep eating meat, but when my world government outlaws the practice, I expect that you'll proudly say you were in the thread that started it all.
Ok.
If you made this thread and said "these are the reasons I choose to not eat meat," or "we shouldn't eat meat for these reasons," I probably never would have posted at all. But when you claimed that we have a moral obligation to stop eating meat, well, you're wrong. That's not true. Nobody has a moral obligation to stop eating meat.
Even if the government banned meat, nobody would have a moral obligation to not eat meat. You don't seem to want to talk about morality at all anymore and are now being rather silly. I guess you don't have a real argument after all. -
2018-04-04 at 2:27 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick We've hit a thousand!
Welcome to the club, niggas. This is officially the longest conversation about animal rights on the internet. Tomorrow's animal liberation scholars will be citing our arguments in their papers. That we have achieved one thousand posts here is a supreme testament to our belief in a better world for all earthly beings, human and nonhuman alike. May we continue to two-thousand, and three, and on until everyone is talking about it. This isn't the end, my niggas, this is only the beginning.
-
2018-04-04 at 11:26 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick Dude, I'm not sure what the deal is, but you give this response to a lot of claims that actually merit a more thorough refutation. It doesn't promote discussion, and it's frustrating. I think you can do better than that.
If I give that response to a lot of claims, can you tell me which ones? And why does your claim "merit a more thorough refutation"? I don't think it does. I don't think it really matters at all. It doesn't need to promote discussion. If you want to discuss, then discuss. Tell us why we have a moral obligation. Maybe you find it frustrating to attempt because no such obligation exists and it is merely your personal preference. -
2018-04-04 at 4:33 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick Dude, I'm not sure what the deal is, but you give this response to a lot of claims that actually merit a more thorough refutation. It doesn't promote discussion, and it's frustrating. I think you can do better than that.
I give that response to a lot of claims? Which ones? Why does your claim "merit a more thorough refutation"? I don't think it does. I don't think it really matters at all. It doesn't need to promote discussion. If you want to discuss, then discuss. Tell us why we have a moral obligation. You can do it. -
2018-04-04 at 3:38 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny There's a bunch of classic issues with strongly relativist positions. A common one is that it's no ethics at all: it gives you no guidance on how you ought to live. You can take the moral error theory position but that's different than "what's right is what's right for you" and I expectly it's quite counter to your intuitions. I'd be willing to bet there are a number of things you think ought to be, at least casually.
I think I'm ok with that.
Originally posted by Lanny This seems blatantly false, at least in general. Correct arguments don't convince many people of many things. There is no argument you could deliver to, say, a vehement flat earther that would shake their faith in their position regardless of the strength of your argument.
Ok. I guess I will just continue to think thay morality is relative and thay nobody has any moral obligation to stop eating meat then. -
2018-04-03 at 10:42 PM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-04-03 at 10:41 PM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
